SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(All) 1861

[2007(7) ADJ 605 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : R.K. AGARWAL AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
DESH BHUSHAN JAIN .......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ........Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52413 of 2005, decided on 6th July, 2007)

Advocates:
Counsel :
S.C. Budhwar, Navin Sinha, Siddharth, Vikas Budhwar for the Petitioner; Ravi Kant, K.R. Sirohi, Amit Sthalaker, S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Adverse remarks—Made by District Judge—Against petitioner, Additional District and Sessions Judge—In spite of such adverse remarks, Administrative Judge gave good entry on work and performance of petitioner, assessing his overall performance, holding him fair and impartial officer and certified his integrity—Effect of—Remarks of District Judge gets merged and vanishes in entry given by Administrative Judge—Administrative Committee has no power to sit in appeal or review of good entry awarded by Administrative Judge—This was the legal position prevailing before High Court Rules were framed, i.e., before 1952—Even otherwise, members of U.P. Higher Judicial Service are governed by Rules framed by State Government and Regulations and Government Orders issued by it, as there is no specific provision in 1975 Rules in this regard—Direction for placing representation of petitioner before Administrative Committee by Chief Justice and order passed by Administrative Committee, substituting remarks given by District Judge—Erroneous—High Court has powers under Article 226 to examine legality of any order passed by High Court on its administrative side—Parameters of such powers of High Court—Encapsulated by help of decided cases—High Court examined matter on merits also and found that petitioner’s record was not doubtful or lacking integrity—Remarks given by Administrative Committee—Based on only hearsay and rumours—Quashed—Law in nut shell—Elaborated. [Constitution of India, Articles 225, 226, 233 and 235—U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975—Rule 34—Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952—Chapter III, Rule 4 (Part B) Clauses 1 and 3 and Rule 4 (Part C), Clauses 16 and 17—Government Order No. 26/1/76-Karmik-2, dated 21.5.1976—Government Order No. 36/1/76-Karmik-2, dated 10.9.1976—U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation Against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995, Rule 4—Doctrine of Contemporanea expositio]. [Paras 27 to 34, 36 to 38, 40 to 44, 50 to 52, 61, 62, 64 and 65]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble R.K.Agrawal, J.—By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Desh Bhushan Jain, seeks the following reliefs :

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned order dated 29.4.2005 as communicated to the petitioner on 2.5.2005 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to ignore the order dated 29.4.2005 as communicated to the petitioner on 2.5.2005 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition).

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner ignoring the order dated 29.4.2005 with 24% interest per annum.

(iv) Issue any order suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follow :

Facts of the case :

According to the petitioner, after obtaining degree in law, the petitioner started practising in the field of law. The Allahabad High Court conducted selections in the year 1995-96 for the Higher Judicial Service. The petitioner also applied and he was selected and appointed directly on 3.8.1996 as a Higher Judicial Service Officer. His first place of posting was at Moradabad as Additional District and Sessions Judge wherein he remained posted upto 5.6.2000. He was transferred to Farrukhabad and joined there on 7.6.2000. However, subsequently he was posted at Nainital where he joined on 9.6.2000. He remained posted there till 2.9.2001 when he was transferred to Saharanpur where he remained posted from 4.9.2001 to 17.11.2003. Thereafter, he was posted as Special Judge, SC & ST, at Basti, which post he held from 19.11.2003 to 6.6.2005. He was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Basti from 6.6.2005, which post he held till the filing of the present petition.

3. According to the petitioner, while he was posted at Saharanpur, the then District Judge, Saharanpur reported adverse remarks for the period 1.4.2003 to 17.11.2003. However, in respect of the preceding years, i.e., 2002-03, the same District Judge, Saharanpur, has himself given good and favourable remarks to the petitioner even certifying his integrity. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the alleged adverse remarks for the period 1.4.2003 to 17.11.2003 reported by the District Judge, Saharanpur, preferred a representation on the administrative side before the Allahabad High Court through the Registrar General, respondent No. 2. The petitioner sought expunction of the adverse remarks.

4. The matter relating to recording of entries in the character roll of the petitioner for the year 2003-04 came up before the Administrative Judge, Saharanpur and the Administrative Judge recorded the following entry in the character roll of the petitioner :

”The work and performance of the Officer in the working days is satisfactory. He has good relation with the member of the Bar and brother Officers. He had made regular inspections which were effective. He is a fair and impartial Officer. Disposal of cases are good. On overall assessment he is rated to be a good Officer.

Integrity certified.”

5. It appears that the representation preferred by the petitioner against the adverse remarks reported by the District Judge, Saharanpur, was not specifically disposed of by the Administrative Judge and had, therefore, remained pending. The representation was placed before the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee, in its meeting held on 6.4.2005, had been pleased to reject the said representation, which order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.4.2005. The order of the Administrative Committee, as communicated to

































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top